How the project will be managed

In order to guarantee that we will finish what we want to do, we need to make sure that we can show incremental progress. Each step will have clear milestones and defined goals. We need to maintain full visibility to the end of each cycle/milestone, so that we know we're accomplishing something concrete and measurable. In order to do that, the project development will be broken into small discrete parts.

We will decide at the beginning what we're doing for the project and work in two-week iterations.

At the beginning of each iteration, we'll pick what we're doing from the stuff we decided to do, in priority order. We will ensure we pick manageable chunks so we don't overestimate or over-commit. After this discussion we'll know who's doing what in the iteration.

Every day, even if we didn't do anything, we'll give a one-sentence status update of what we did, what we're working on, or what we will work on just so everyone knows where we all are.

At the end of the two week iterations, even if we did minimal work, we will evaluate our progress and discuss changes to the feature plan.

It's a very rigid system and I don't expect us to fully follow it to the word, but I know that this'll force us to prioritize what we want to do, and to keep each other updated.

I'll join your project when it actually starts. I've been let down by too many people proposing projects that never move anywhere to get involved until I am sure it will move.

My opinion, you're working top-down, you need to work bottom-up. Start with a global idea for how combat will work, then create units that will be used in the way that will create the game experiance you are looking to create. Creating units isn't the starting point. Creating a theme, more than just "modern" is where you should go.

I'll join your project when it actually starts. I've been let down by too many people proposing projects that never move anywhere to get involved until I am sure it will move.My opinion, you're working top-down, you need to work bottom-up. Start with a global idea for how combat will work, then create units that will be used in the way that will create the game experiance you are looking to create. Creating units isn't the starting point. Creating a theme, more than just "modern" is where you should go.

I don't understand how we're working the "wrong way". Come up with general theme, split task into small manageable and discrete chunks, and iterate and iterate.

don't split into chunks, start from the begining, then move forwards, until you can split into chunks.

I guess it's hard to explain the way I think is right, so I'll give an example.

I would start with how you want the game to play. What's it going to feel like. With strategy games, that's really, really, really, hard. It's probably the hardest part, where in most game types, it's the easiest.

In Fire Emblem, the feel of the game was very RPGish, and the way it played out was that every level was more or less training for the next level after it. The game was aimed at controlling your units so the ones that you wanted to gain experiance were in the front lines. There was also the triangles of attacks that guided which units were good against what other units. Most units counterattacked when attacked. The ones that were different were because of limetations in thier range. Most units move about 1/5th of the map. Any other unit is limeted or better.

That's fire emblem, and more or less a half assed version of it. I figure you need to know how the gameplay will be like, before you can make units. I figure you need to know what the units do before you can actually program the game. Then, it's just split up tasks, like sprite drawing, sound effects, and music.

Now, I will say this. This is all just my opinion, based on making OTHER types of games. My actual TBS making experiance is VERY limeted. I have made other games before. I have played plenty of TBS games. That's all the expertise I have.

I don't understand how we're working the "wrong way". Come up with general theme, split task into small manageable and discrete chunks, and iterate and iterate.

I see what he's saying. It's better to start with an engine first, then plug things into it that can work with it, as opposed to coming up with objects that will obligatorily be forced into it later down the road, perhaps not as fittingly as it would otherwise.

If you meant more of the detailed stuff like leveling up units by placing them on the front lines, I don't think we'll do that. If anything, we'll have military units get better/unlock more units with research, and have people get better with training.

As for starting with an engine first, I know that won't work because we have a history of losing interest in projects before they're half done because we don't see a tangible product. That's why we need to discretize the project. Let's say developing the engine takes 2 months. How will we know it works? We won't. It's much better to start small and go big, because the regional maps are largely separate from the world maps.

This isn't Microsoft's Windows or Office division where large top-down management and planning is required. This is an Internet game developed by random forum members. We aren't creating tens of millions of lines of code. I don't see us breaking 10k, if we write good code.

Might I suggest that we make a VERY simplified version of this (as in something we could finish in a few days) just to gain perspective? Something with shitty paint sprites, no sound, maybe just an 8x8 grid and one type of unit, yet enough for a few of us to play and get a feel for it? I think our game would be a hell of a lot better (and more likely to come about at all, due to possible sustained interest) if we did.

Might I suggest that we make a VERY simplified version of this (as in something we could finish in a few days) just to gain perspective? Something with shitty paint sprites, no sound, maybe just an 8x8 grid and one type of unit, yet enough for a few of us to play and get a feel for it? I think our game would be a hell of a lot better (and more likely to come about at all, due to possible sustained interest) if we did.

I second that, it's a solid idea. Would totally build confidence in the project.

QUOTE (Angel @ Jul 19 2009, 04:20 PM)

I see what he's saying. It's better to start with an engine first, then plug things into it that can work with it, as opposed to coming up with objects that will obligatorily be forced into it later down the road, perhaps not as fittingly as it would otherwise.

That wasn't really what I was saying. I think the engine is not a priority, unless we are worried about weather we have the capibility to make the engine.

I think that we should start by deciding exactly what kind of game we are making. Is it more like fire emblem, advanced wars, age of empires, ect? What kind of feel is the game going to have, is it going to be turn based where every game starts and ends on it's own, is it going to be more about building and planning, more on the macro, more on the micro, ect.

I've read somewhere that it was going to be long term. Is it going to be where players build thier nation/team/whatever every day, and then challenge other players to battles. Is there going to be a map, and players invade each other.

The starting steps are all about fleshing out ideas, in my opinion. After that, create units that will give the ideas life. Then, after that, do the programming.

I think that we should start by deciding exactly what kind of game we are making. Is it more like fire emblem, advanced wars, age of empires, ect? What kind of feel is the game going to have, is it going to be turn based where every game starts and ends on it's own, is it going to be more about building and planning, more on the macro, more on the micro, ect.

I've read somewhere that it was going to be long term. Is it going to be where players build thier nation/team/whatever every day, and then challenge other players to battles. Is there going to be a map, and players invade each other.

The starting steps are all about fleshing out ideas, in my opinion. After that, create units that will give the ideas life. Then, after that, do the programming.

I think that Keese has a very good point. We are starting to talk about the general idea behind the game, but we haven't really solidified it. I think that a lot of us have some vague idea of what the game would be like, but our ideas aren't necessarily the same.

However, talking about details such as the units is important because it forces us to think about these general ideas of what we really want the game to be like.

In my mind, our game is: - a separate world in which participants interact with others a lot (instead of playing against a computer or imaginary opponent). - It would be like world domination (I've never played it, but I'm guessing it's similar) in which each person has a team that competes against everyone else (but people can make allies) and conquer territories. - The actual fighting would be like advance wars (it would be a challenge to make fighting against someone else not terribly slow while waiting for an opponent to respond). - While people can gain advantages and "collect" more military units and territory, the game would be more strategy-based than brute force leveling up. - it would make use of zeny- I'm unsure how realistic an economy we would have - it should include a way of adding new content. New content makes things interesting.

What if, for maps, players could create maps for thier home areas. You know, with choke points and the like, to make them easier to defend? Give the defending player an advantage.

Also, the way I see it, if we made a game like this, it should, technically, work without having to program anything. It would be like a very, very, detailed MSN group strategy RPG. That's how I see it, right now. The programing would come later, just to make it look prettier.----------------------------------------------

Might I suggest that we make a VERY simplified version of this (as in something we could finish in a few days) just to gain perspective? Something with shitty paint sprites, no sound, maybe just an 8x8 grid and one type of unit, yet enough for a few of us to play and get a feel for it? I think our game would be a hell of a lot better (and more likely to come about at all, due to possible sustained interest) if we did.

That no longer works because we changed the map.input file to a .txt file. Why did we do that?

The description of the "shitty" version of the project is not far off I don't think from how the actual one will turn out... maybe the final will just be bigger, more tiles, and sound if we want it (I don't see sound as a concern until everything else is done)

That no longer works because we changed the map.input file to a .txt file. Why did we do that?

The description of the "shitty" version of the project is not far off I don't think from how the actual one will turn out... maybe the final will just be bigger, more tiles, and sound if we want it (I don't see sound as a concern until everything else is done)

Where will we make those status updates? The status.txt file?

Well, I'm talking stick figures, and tiles that were, in my mind, even less detailed than what Jinghao already has down.

Anyway, I'm at a loss as to where to begin. For one, how will the units attack, in terms of coding? Will it be something as simple as, say, if one unit from my team steps on a tile occupied by a unit from your team, they battle with a random outcome based on the type of unit? If such is the case, the simplified version of the game would just be random 0 or 1, if 1 you win, if 0, I win, your unit dies, mine now occupies that tile. Then, if we make a quick 8x8 map with a uniform terrain, 1 step per turn, horizontal or vertical, and place say 4 units anywhere on "your half" of the board, then with this system, we'll at least have something fundamental down, and we can either build it up from there, or at least use it as a template.

I'll even be nice and upload a stick figure graphic right now (I'll go with something the size of a tile), but otherwise, I think we need more of a detailed plan on how to go about even this.